I may be wrong, but I know in some states they do. But dont the Game and Fish pay property taxes on the land they own? Just reading the post and it was mentioned the "..land is no longer on the tax roll.." and I thought of that. maybe its ND...anyway just wondering.
I think everyone has made at least some valid points in their posts, there has to be a fine balance between everything.
I am still trying to get my head around the federal land being turned back to the states, my concern is will it stay public? how will the states manage it, where will the funding to do so come from? Here in Wyoming, about 49% of the state is Federal, and I cringe when I think of the size of the agency and staff it would take to manage that, the cost of doing so, ( 1 bad fire season and it could bankrupt the whole deal ), would the benefits outway the detriments? tough questions..
Yes, I posted a couple days ago that I had found that SDGFP does pay property taxes on their public access properties, not on admin facilities. I stand corrected on that.
I think if we could get back to a Federal Government that understands it's place, relative to the Constitution, it still has a place in managing land in the West. Carly Fiorina wanted to audit every cent the government spends, then decide how to proceed. I think that would be a good starting point.
When I was growing-up, you knew the Fed in the old plain Jane Green Dodge when you saw him in the woods. He was your neighbor, or sat next to you in church. He was a good dude and a good steward of the land. And they drove those old Dodge's until they just laid down and died, then they sold them at auction. It was not uncommon to see the same guy, driving the same old truck for 15 years. Now, they get brand-new, loaded Silverado's every two years, have $30k in electronic equipment in them, either a $12K four-wheeler, or a $10k KTM in the back, all the high-buck riding gear that I can't afford, and I get it for wholesale. Those same guys, these days, are college boys, just out to prove themselves before they move to the next gig. They aren't from here, they don't care about anything but furthering their career. They do that by getting noticed.
The Feds and States both have taken to using the added leeway that Conservation agents have regarding search and seizure. I find this to be abusive. An example: The cops will occasionally setup a "checkpoint" at the Wasta SD rest area. When they do this, they will have GFP agents involved. These are mainly drug interdiction checkpoints. If there is any kind of hunting/fishing season on, they will use the warden's expanded search/seizure "rights" to look in areas of a person's vehicle where they have no right to look without a warrant. I find these types of actions leave a bad taste in an honest man's mouth, that's how relationships break-down.
The hard part of any land transfer to the States would be consolidating the revenue to manage it. Part of the Feds power is that the money flows through them. If you think about the size of government necc. to manage the land in your State, just think about how big the bureaucracy that it takes in WA DC to "manage 640 million acres? I saw one study that said $275M/yr if Utah took over management of their Federal land. Figures lie, and liars figure, but it would be spendy, at-least at first. But, I suspect the State's could manage their grazing, timber, mining and recreation more efficiently, give it's people better access to the managers of the land, and, in some States, turn positive cash flow. One thing the Feds don't use is common sense. It ain't ranch kids from WY making the calls out there. It's Harvard grads, they all swim in the same cesspool, attend the same Georgetown cocktail parties, and generally think that we would be better off if we would just let them run our lives.
One other point: I think it highly unfair that we have to pay to manage Federal land, our land, but if that land is, say 50 miles from here, but in Wyoming, I have to buy out of state hunting tags, at a very high price, and may have to hire an outfitter just to get a tag for certain areas. People who live in-state don't pay any more towards the management of those lands than out-of-staters.
